This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-07-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Clearly, petitioner's counsel is guilty of simple negligence. Settled is the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client.[17] This is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.[18] Consequently, the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them.[19] It is true that there are recognized exceptions to this rule, as in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its application results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality.[20] However, none of these exceptions have been shown to be present in the instant case. Hence, the negligence of her counsel binds petitioner, and she cannot insist that the principle of liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure be applied to her case. | |||||